Blessed Water:

This recently came up in a game between my Possessed Warband and my brother's Reiklanders: Does throwing Blessed Water count as a shooting attack?

Now, the different interpretations we have are:
1) It does not count as a shooting attack because whilst the Net specifically mentions that you throw it as a shooting attack, Blessed Water does not.
2) It's a thrown item, and you use your BS to 'attack' with it, so it counts as a shooting attack.

The reason we are looking for a clarification is that if it does not count as a shooting attack, it would mean there is no reason you couldn't throw it into combat (you are not making an attack, just using an miscellaneous item)- which is something my brother is hoping he can do. Fluffwise, it might make sense, as he claims you are opening the vial and only throwing the water, with a splashing motion; since it wouldn't damage the friendly fighter why would the water thrower be concerned about their safety (which seems to be the main reason you can't shoot into combat) ?

I obviously feel otherwise, as you use your BS to hit with it, and presumably use it in the shooting phase; I also like the idea of the person throwing the glass vial and it shattering on the Undead/ Daemon, which would mean that, reasonably, the model wouldn't want to bottle his mates in the back of their head by accident.

Since I can't find anything on it in the errata I have, or on this forum, I thought I would put it to the masses and let the Gods of Chaos speak to me through their most mighty machine of corruption (them internetz).

What say you Boring Forumites?

What is the reason for not shooting into close combat involving a friendly warrior? The shooter doesn't want to risk hitting the friendly model. In this way it makes sense not to throw a net into close combat because it could hinder the ally. The worst that would happen with blessed water is that the friendly warrior might get a bit wet too. However hopefully they wouldn't complain if it helps bring down a vampire. I would house rule an exception to this would be if the friendly warrior is also susceptible to blessed water then it cannot be used (e.g. Marianna Chevaux). Well this is the reason for the way I voted at least.

I'm going to agree with RL here although I am not adding my vote to the poll, because I disagree with the way the question is worded!  

It is clearly a shooting attack, although it is a weapon that can't harm friendly models since any warband with warriors who could be harmed can't use it. I would house rule that it can be thrown into a hand to hand combat.

Thanks guys, though I apologise for the very convoluted and long winded way I worded the entire thing... I'm happy to house rule it that way as it does make sense, just thought I'd get some second opinions (we've taken to resolving all disputes randomly/ online, so that there can be no accusations of bias :p)

I'm just worried that my warband is about to be neutered as both other groups in the campaign will likely be trying to buy multiple Blessed Waters after each game -_-

It won't be that bad. Remember that water is a one-use item that is not trivial in price.

I am always curious about Blessed Water use. Even though it is an original rulebook piece of equipment our group NEVER uses it. Perhaps this is because I am the only stubborn one to try and I have a less than stellar success rate. In our last campaign I had more BW stolen than I actually used since the Possessed never seemed to be within range of my heroes carrying the Water.

Well, when we initially played, some 10 years ago, we used the rule that you only got to roll an exploration dice per hero who didn't go OOA in the game; which meant that people were more conservative, with their heroes usually snapping up kills from the grounded opponents until they'd levelled up enough to be a threat on their own. Since reading the errata'd rules recently and seeing that's not the case, it got to the point in our last campaign where the mercenary warbands reached their max. size and rather than using hired swords just started giving everyone and their mother pistols/  sets of armour- including the henchmen!

As the only Possessed/ Undead warband in the 4 player campaign I hate the thought of the others stocking up on BWater between games so they can run me off quickly. I've started slowly (staying at 6 models for the first 4 games) so that I can afford a Possessed with 2 upgrades before expanding. Until I can afford more henchmen, my Possessed are the workhorses of the band (and rightly so) so it feels a rubbish that since two of the Merc. warbands are ranged heavy they can use all of those BS upgrades to throw at me in combat, which is where I need to be safe from the other weapons :/

Despite both of said Merc bands being at 13 -15 members, and myself on only 7 at the moment, they both seem to consider me the biggest threat when we have 3-way games... I don't quite know why but I suppose I should take it as a compliment  

Quote :

Well, when we initially played, some 10 years ago, we used the rule that you only got to roll an exploration dice per hero who didn't go OOA in the game; which meant that people were more conservative, with their heroes usually snapping up kills from the grounded opponents until they'd levelled up enough to be a threat on their own. Since reading the errata'd rules recently and seeing that's not the case,...

Um, what errata are you referring to? You really DO only get to roll an exploration dice per hero who didn't go OOA. Certain Hired Swords (all unofficial) can get you some extra dice, but you can only ever count 6.

Von Kurst wrote:

Um, what errata are you referring to?  You really DO only get to roll an exploration dice per hero who didn't go OOA.

I have a copy of Mordheim saved as a PDF in three parts; it's been a while since I downloaded it but AFAIK it came from the GW webpage... I could be wrong though (see last paragraph). In the PDF it mentions specifically as long as you don't die in the after game sequence you can roll exploration.

My brother is still using his old paperback copy of the rulebook and in that, it does mention not going OOA lets you explore, which is how we always used to play it. Since there was a contradiction, I assumed someone had just take the time to update the PDF with the correct information...

That said, on the Lesser Magic list there is a small graphic that's been inserted from the Skaven warband pages, I believe; it actually eclipses some of the wording on the 4th spell (Silver arrows), although the 5th and 6th spell have been text-wrapped properly :/

Sounds fishy. I just checked the Specialist Games PDFs

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2360274a_m1330018_Mord_Rulebook_part_3_-_campaigns.pdf

Quote :

Roll a D6 for each Hero in your warband who survives
without going out of action.

Ah, my mistake; I can see the part you mentioned (paragraph two of the income section); the bit that confused me was the separate mention under 'Exploration Procedure' - step 1 - which only mentions surviving (and not OOA).

Yeah, minor inconsistencies in phrasing are a GW hallmark. I'm surprised they haven't copyrighted that as well.  

IMHO the vile would need house ruled to be thrown into h2h. logic yes it makes sense but rule wise I think it can't be thrown into h2h. Same rules I think as the fire bomb and well I can't see that being safe to throw into h2h combat.
I'm also not keen on house rules being added mid campaign unless needed to fix a broken rule(s) that does not effect all warbands equaly. like dual weilding I would not fix even if broken mid campaign.